Schwarz and Simonenko: "We explicate and compare two semantic-pragmatic approaches to so-called factive island effects: the contradiction analysis (Abrus´an 2011, 2014), which excludes factive island questions by virtue of assigning them contradictory presuppositions; and the triviality account (Oshima 2007; Simonenko, in press), under which factive island cases are bad by virtue of lacking informative semantic answers relative to any context where they are otherwise felicitous. We present new evidence to argue that the triviality account is superior to the contradiction account."

Fall 2014

Date

Presentation

Background reading(s)

Friday, November 21, 2014 3:00 -4:30 pm

Hadas Kotek, "Q-particles and the semantics of wh-questions" PART II

Abstract:"In this talk I present the theory of question semantics proposed in my dissertation. The theory builds on Cable's (2007; 2010) syntax of pied-piping, where interrogative movement is driven by Q- particles (silent in English, but visible in e.g. Tlingit), but develops a new semantics for this system. I show that this new semantics is able to model a range of data not captured at the same time in previous theories, including intricate patterns of pied-piping, superiority effects, the presuppositions of questions, the readings of multiple questions, and focus intervention effects in multiple questions. Time permitting, I will also discuss some possible modifications and expansions of the theory that I have been contemplating recently.

Friday, November 7, 2014 3:00 -4:30 pm

Hadas Kotek, "Q-particles and the semantics of wh-questions"

Abstract:"In this talk I present the theory of question semantics proposed in my dissertation. The theory builds on Cable's (2007; 2010) syntax of pied-piping, where interrogative movement is driven by Q- particles (silent in English, but visible in e.g. Tlingit), but develops a new semantics for this system. I show that this new semantics is able to model a range of data not captured at the same time in previous theories, including intricate patterns of pied-piping, superiority effects, the presuppositions of questions, the readings of multiple questions, and focus intervention effects in multiple questions. Time permitting, I will also discuss some possible modifications and expansions of the theory that I have been contemplating recently.

Friday, October 10, 2014 3:00 -4:30 pm

David Nicolas, "Plural logic and sensitivity to order" (joint work with Salvatore Florio KSU)

Abstract:

"Sentences that exhibit sensitivity to order (e.g. John and Mary arrived at school in that order and Mary and John arrived at school in that order) present a challenge for the standard formulation of plural logic. In response, some authors have advocated new versions of plural logic based on more fine-grained notions of plural reference, such as serial reference (Hewitt 2012) and articulated reference (Ben-Yami 2013). The aim of this article is to show that sensitivity to order should be accounted for without altering the standard formulation of plural logic. In particular, sensitivity to order does not call for a more fine-grained notion of plural reference. We point out that the phenomenon in question is quite broad and that current proposals are not equipped to deal with the full range of cases in which order plays a role. Then we develop an alternative, unified account, which locates the phenomenon not in the way in which plural terms can refer, but in the meaning of special expressions such as in that order and respectively."

Winter 2014

Meeting Time

Fridays 3:00-4:30 pm
Room 117, 1085 Dr. Penfield

The syntax-semantics research group meeting is an informal venue where people interested in syntax, semantics and pragmatics gather to present their work in progress, or discuss articles. Graduate students who work or wish to work in these areas are expected to participate. This is an ideal place to get feedback, so students are particularly encouraged to present articles of their interest, present various stages of their projects for term papers, evaluation papers or dissertations, or try out with practice talks for conferences. Starting this semester, we will have a series of informal tutorials on semantic topics. These mini 'crash courses' do not presuppose any background in semantics. Drop Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Brian Buccola or Alanah McKillen a line if you want to present something.

Date

Presentation

Background reading(s)

Friday, February 14, 2014
3:00-4:30 pm

Meg Grant on processing subset comparatives.

Friday, March 21, 2014
3:00-4:30 pm

David-Étienne Bouchard: "The purpose of this tutorial will be to provide a semantics to sentences containing a degree operator, in particular the comparative morpheme 'more¹. In order to do this we will introduce degrees in our semantic ontology and enrich the denotations of gradable adjectives like tall and heavy. Degree operators will be treated as quantifiers over degrees and shown to have some flexibility in scope, albeit in a limited manner.

Fall 2013

Meeting Time

Fridays 3:00-4:30 pm
Room 117, 1085 Dr. Penfield

The syntax-semantics research group meeting is an informal venue where people interested in syntax, semantics and pragmatics gather to present their work in progress, or discuss articles. Graduate students who work or wish to work in these areas are expected to participate. This is an ideal place to get feedback, so students are particularly encouraged to present articles of their interest, present various stages of their projects for term papers, evaluation papers or dissertations, or try out with practice talks for conferences. Drop Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Brian Buccola or Alanah McKillen a line if you want to present something.

In this presentation we develop an argument that head movement may have semantic effects and that it can hence not be a PF phenomenon.The argument is based on novel facts regarding scope in infinitival complementation structures in German. We show that every elementinside the infinitival clause must take scope over the matrix verb ifthe embedded clause is a VP that remains in situ. If, by contrast, theembedded clause is either a vP or a VP that undergoes movement, no such wide scope is possible. We propose that wide scope of embedded elements is the result of syntactic verb cluster formation: The infinitival verb incorporates into the higher verb. To obtain theobserved scope facts, we suggest that the verb cluster is semantically interpreted via Function Composition. Supplemented with standard assumptions about the interpretation of movement, this account derivesthe wide scope of material inside the embedded clause.

Abstract: Both philosophers of language and linguists commonly appeal to salience in order to fix the meanings of context-sensitive terms in context. By considering the particular case of demonstratives, I will argue that the claim that salience fixes meaning in context is either trivial and uninformative, or else it is false. To show this, it will prove necessary to distinguish between four different types of salience: objective, speaker-oriented, listener-oriented, and coordinative. Objective salience, I argue, is in fact conceptually incoherent. The other three notions, on the other hand, make bad predictions in a number of cases. On this basis, I suggest that salience-based theories ought to be dispreferred to the alternative hypothesis ---that speakers' intentions are in fact responsible for fixing meaning in context.